[stevebrot]

Galleries in my area (Portland, Oregon metro) show real prints that hang on walls and can be purchased by those that fancy the work.

Steve

[UncleVanya]

As for selling digital copies of the image, NFTs are the new way to go. With an NFT, the buyer gets cryptographically-certified ownership of their copy. And although others might get to see that image and even make a digital copy of that image, only the owner of the NFT can say "I own a original artist-authorized copy."

Call me a Luddite but NFT’s don’t have any appeal to me.

[BarryE]

At some level, light-emitting displays are a much better medium than prints for any photography that includes light sources in the image such as outdoor images.

Displaying the luminosity of the sky or specular reflections in juxtaposition with normal reflective surfaces (leaves, fur, rocks, etc.) means recreating variations in light level that exceed the ambient illumination of the room

Reflective light media (aka prints) are limited to reflecting maybe 95% of the light falling on them. They cannot replicate the 200% or 400% or more brightness of bright light sources or reflections in the scene.

Which is why, I think curators and many photographers, are losing printing skills.

An image processed to be viewed on a screen is not ready for printing - there's work to be done to get it print ready (lots sometimes, but no time to discuss this here). I also think many images processed for screens are not that suitable for printing, and vice versa. High luminosity levels are one area, as you point out, where prints struggle - not colour as B&W is different. However, the opposite is probably also true as a screen image that's does not have extremes, but is more reliant on subtly transitions of tone and colour is often better printed (on a appropriate paper).

I can also add that a show using screens only is easier again to curate as all that's needed to be done in the hall is draw the blinds and turn the lights off. An exhibition of prints is an entirely different proposition where room lighting and positioning is crucial. Dumbing down, again ...?

[Michail_P]

We have to go with the flow. Digital medium has offered a lot to the photographic industry. Why not embrace that? An exhibition hall with a digital screen arrangement can host many different events, photo art included. I find it fascinating, even after having enjoyed many high-quality printed photos. Tbh I think a 40 mp well exposed, nicely focused shot is likely more respected when shown on a high - res digital screen. I love hand made prints, art is art, but why develop better sensors if you're gonna restrict the tonal range in a photo paper?

[Dartmoor Dave]

I suppose the question of print vs digital display in a gallery is a question about which gets you closest to the authentic work.

In the days of film photography it was fairly straightforward. B&W photography was almost always done with negative film, so the authentic work was a print done by the photographer or by a master printer under the photographer's supervision. Serious colour photography was usually done with transparencies, so the authentic work would have been the actual transparency viewed on a lightbox. A Cibachrome print might have been displayed in a gallery, but that was one generation away from the original transparency. Meanwhile, some artist-photographers specialised in colour prints from negative film, but there weren't many of them.

But what's the original, authentic work when it comes to digital photography? I'd argue that, since it's a digital medium, displaying the work on a screen in a gallery could be more authentic than displaying a print -- assuming that the screen has been set up in a way that has the photographer's confirmation that it looks as intended.

Unless, of course, the photographer's primary aim was to produce a print. In which case, as with B&W film photography, only the print would count as the authentic work.

Could it be that the reason why we prefer to see prints on a gallery wall, rather than a display screen, is that we think the print holds some sort of magic from having been touched by the artist's hand?

[BarryE]

... but why develop better sensors if you're gonna restrict the tonal range in a photo paper?

Perhaps in the capturing these modern, highly capable sensors allow us to be creative down the (processing) line, which means screen or print is not inhibited?

I imagine a histogram with nothing left or right and a bell shape in the middle as an extreme. The sensor hasn't got out of first gear, but there's still lots of creative potential to produce a stunning/evocative image, be it on screen or print. Then the sun pokes through the mist, our eyes adjust, but even the best sensors are quickly out of DR. The photographer adapts. Recomposes. HDR? Plans to blend. Recomposes... Somewhere in this process a little voice says to me, screen or print?

I'd hate it if all we ever see are digital images. I can't imagine the painting community switching to digital presentations of their work. I do think we, the audience and photographers, need to consider where we're going. Are we going to be led by Instagram styled or technically stunning photographs, or do we try and ensure the art* of photography is not lost by staying in digital world.

* I'm obviously not trying to say digital only photographs can not be art, rather photography as an artform has long battled to be accepted as art. Never having a tangible output will make this even more difficult.

[robgski]

An exhibition of prints is an entirely different proposition where room lighting and positioning is crucial. Dumbing down, again ...?

On the other hand, digital displays allow for galleries and exhibitions to be made in spaces where room lighting is hard to control.

[BarryE]

On the other hand, digital displays allow for galleries and exhibitions to be made in spaces where room lighting is hard to control.

Fair point ...

[VSTAR]

I am going next week to the same exhibition at the Natural History Museum in London, UK.

I very much hope they are prints I am going to see.

Please post after u go to view the exhibit. Interested in your experience.

JohnMc
“I'm trying to recall the last painting exhibit that listed which brand of brushes were used.”

Actually at many fine art galleries and museums of fine art the medium information will be listed….canvas, oil paint etc. I actually appreciated being able to find out what camera, focal length, speed, aperture was used.

I can tell you that the electronic displays at the exhibit were clear, bright, a respectable size. They also gave me a different feeling when viewing them as compared to a large print viewed at ie the International Renter of Photography in NYC. Maybe it is similar to listening to a musician that has a live band backing them versus prerecorded electronic music similar to what Ed Sheeran does. Close your eyes and they both sound similar but open your eyes and the experience is different (which is why the fans had a class action lawsuit against him…and they won!)

[JohnMc]

But what's the original, authentic work when it comes to digital photography?

Ones and zeros. Now the question is, what authentic lubricant is best for the slippery slope?

---------- Post added 03-11-22 at 09:09 AM ----------

Please post after u go to view the exhibit. Interested in your experience.

JohnMc
“I'm trying to recall the last painting exhibit that listed which brand of brushes were used.”

Actually at many fine art galleries and museums of fine art the medium information will be listed….canvas, oil paint etc. I actually appreciated being able to find out what camera, focal length, speed, aperture was used.

You understand that 'Pentax' and 'Nikon' are not mediums, right [...unless of course fitted with a 2mm fØ.2 crystal ball ]


For kicks;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2002/01/04/untitled-art-by-...-90ae8944674d/

[VSTAR]

Ones and zeros. Now the question is, what authentic lubricant is best for the slippery slope?

---------- Post added 03-11-22 at 09:09 AM ----------




You understand that 'Pentax' and 'Nikon' are not mediums, right [...unless of course fitted with a 2mm fØ.2 crystal ball ]


For kicks;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2002/01/04/untitled-art-by-...-90ae8944674d/

Not sure what art, photography, definition you are referring to. The camera is defined as being part of the medium used to produce the photo, artwork, just as the pen is part of the medium when using a pen and ink to produce artwork. Therefore, canon, Pentax, Nikon are part of the medium used to create the artwork. By definition even photoshop software would also be part of the medium.

[JohnMc]

Not sure what art, photography, definition you are referring to. The camera is defined as being part of the medium used to produce the photo, artwork, just as the pen is part of the medium when using a pen and ink to produce artwork. Therefore, canon, Pentax, Nikon are part of the medium used to create the artwork. By definition even photoshop software would also be part of the medium.

Of course your entitled to your definition(s), aren't we all? Yes, of course you can say the camera brand is a part of the "medium", but w/o knowing which card the 1's & 0's were written to, and which brand of capacitors enabled said writing, reading, transfer and viewing, let alone what pathway/process that data is conveyed back and forth and eventually to some form of display, where are we? If the tool's brand/model is significant or unique to the making of the work then it may be a relevant detail to impart to the viewer, however most images made with a Nikon can be made with a Pentax, or Contax, or Contessa. While interesting at times to know whether the button pusher used D-76 or ID-11or vert azur, it's generally not too informative for the typical viewing. If all that minutia is requisite to attain an appreciation of a work, then one might be, um, de-focused.


Then again, having copies of The Camera, The Negative, The Print, on/as the cards next an Adams work would increase book sales, or something.

[UncleVanya]

My general response when pressed is to simply give the brand but my internal response is... "Do you ask the chef what brand stove and pan he used?"

I charitably assume they are interested because they want to take pictures like mine. But I as a cook (not a chef) I do not ask what equipment was used to make food I eat. I do sometimes think about the way it was made. And sometimes I might ask if there are unusual ingredients that wouldn't normally come to mind. An example was a mulligatawny soup that has apples in it.

But as a photographer I am much more likely to want to know about the gear and technique if I can get that info - it helps me understand the photograph and the photographer more. This is mostly for my own interest than for any other purpose - I may never shoot that equipment but I will know it was done with it once and that may matter some day - who knows. I may also use this info to inform me about the photographer's biases if any. An unassuming cheap lens tells me a different story than a megabucks super duper lens. I'm more likely to admire the cheap lens results that wow me than the megabucks lens results that are equally good. It's not fair - just because someone used a great lens they shouldn't be viewed as less - but I might. It's stupid I know.

[Mccsiz]

I suppose the question of print vs digital display in a gallery is a question about which gets you closest to the authentic work.

In the days of film photography it was fairly straightforward. B&W photography was almost always done with negative film, so the authentic work was a print done by the photographer or by a master printer under the photographer's supervision. Serious colour photography was usually done with transparencies, so the authentic work would have been the actual transparency viewed on a lightbox. A Cibachrome print might have been displayed in a gallery, but that was one generation away from the original transparency. Meanwhile, some artist-photographers specialised in colour prints from negative film, but there weren't many of them.

But what's the original, authentic work when it comes to digital photography? I'd argue that, since it's a digital medium, displaying the work on a screen in a gallery could be more authentic than displaying a print -- assuming that the screen has been set up in a way that has the photographer's confirmation that it looks as intended.

Unless, of course, the photographer's primary aim was to produce a print. In which case, as with B&W film photography, only the print would count as the authentic work.

Could it be that the reason why we prefer to see prints on a gallery wall, rather than a display screen, is that we think the print holds some sort of magic from having been touched by the artist's hand?

Are you familiar with the work of Canadian Jeff Wall? Many years ago, his large-scale back-lit Cibachrome photographs caught my eye, and I became a fan of backlit transparencies. I hope that some day my creations will be displayed in this manner. That being said, Samsung has a "tile" called The Wall (probably not a coincidence) that displays stunning digital images. I wish that I could view the same creation side-by-side, one displayed as a back-lit transparency, the other as a direct-view LED. My guess is that tiles are the future.

Cheers,
Loyd

[brineb]

I have been to many gallery shows and have never seen a digital presentation of work, might be interesting.